Disabled Safety Devices

This just appeared (again) in another thread which I chose not to hijack. I understand that there is a rule which disqualifies firearms which have had a safety device disabled.
I would presume that this rule was established in the (good ol') days when many shooters (some of note) would 'pin' the grip safety in the off position on their 1911's. This was usually only recommended to be done on pistols intended for defensive use and it was often pointed out that John Browning had not thought highly enough of the grip safety to include it on his final pistol, the 1935. No doubt someone decided that they could create a 'better' trigger pull with the grip safety pinned and applied it to target oriented pistols as well.
Now we have firearms like the Ruger MK I, II & III where the first two never had a magazine disconnect but since the III comes with one the shooter must keep it to be 'legal'. Or the plethora of 1911's which have no 'keyed lock' on the mainspring housing but you can't remove the one on a Range Officer and still compete.
To be fair, should we require everyone shooting a MK I or II to retrofit a magazine disconnect? Certainly all 1911's could be required to fit a key lockable mainspring housing and every S&W revolver could have the frame drilled for a key lock. Would that not be a 'fair' requirement?
How much is enough and where does it become too much? Should the rule about safety devices just define a 'minimum requirement' for a functional safety to exist?
It is no doubt apparent that I am not a fan of lawyer/beurocrat(sp) designed 'safety devices' whether in the field of firearms or anywhere else. There are certainly improvements in safety over the years but there are also lots of things whose intent is ONLY to allow a manufacturer to say "it wasn't our fault" (and often it wasn't, you can't fix stupid).

Bruce

I am not in favor of many of the "safety" devices of which you speak, but they are a reality in this day and age. Actually magazine disconnectors have been around for many decades. We can rant and rave about lawsuits, lawyers and insurance companies driving things like this, but it won't change anything. The firearms manufacturers are going to continue with these devices. That being said, the rule that all the manufacturer's original safety devices must be operational is not a bad rule.

I've never heard that replacing the ILS on a Range Officer made it illegal. As a matter of fact it actually should bring it into compliance with the "standard".

you cant disable a safety devise, but in the case of the ro you can replace it with a standard ms housing and its legal. Some here just take out the parts and replace with standard and add a pin, this is not legal because you disabled it.

I always put the ILS in the category of a padlock. It makes it safe around kids but has to be removed to be fired. It really is only an internal padlock and has no place on a pistol that is being used.

Len      your opinion might be different

OldMaster64 wrote:I always put the ILS in the category of a padlock. It makes it safe around kids but has to be removed to be fired. It really is only an internal padlock and has no place on a pistol that is being used.

Len      your opinion might be different

+1 I was getting ready to post almost the same thing.

- Dave

I did request a clarification from NRA and CMP about magazine disconnects and they said that those need to stay operational in order to be compliant with their rules about safety devices.

DavidR wrote:... but in the case of the ro you can replace it with a standard ms housing and its legal...

Is this from an official NRA clarification?

I read the MKIII owners manual cover to cover and nowhere does Ruger call the magazine disconnect a safety or a safety device.  They call it what it is, a magazine disconnect and thats it.  Why does the NRA call it a safety if the manufacturer does not?

SMBeyer wrote:I read the MKIII owners manual cover to cover and nowhere does Ruger call the magazine disconnect a safety or a safety device.  They call it what it is, a magazine disconnect and thats it.  Why does the NRA call it a safety if the manufacturer does not?

Interesting!

beeser wrote:

DavidR wrote:... but in the case of the ro you can replace it with a standard ms housing and its legal...

Is this from an official NRA clarification?

Countless ones have passed inspections at many regionals and camp perry, if you present the gun with a standard ms housing you will be fine.

Just for your consideration and thoughtful review as this continues.

Please note the rule book does not say "parts", "devices", or "mechanisms".  You may debate as you will the meaning of the following as it is the specific wording to be addressed: 

"All standard safety features of the firearm must operate properly."


And production guns must not have any external or internal modifications except those allowed.  

So, you simply must ask yourself, as though you were answering a judge in a case of accidentally shooting a 5 year old child on the other side of the range, are all standard safety features provided by the manufacturer of that gun operating properly? 

It's up to you.


The NRA Conventional Pistol Rules....an endless source of entertainment, amusement, and surprise.  Get your's today!

The snotty rebel in me wants to say that an ILS is NOT a "standard safety feature".

But calling it a theft deterrent device would be a stretch beyond credibility.

The magazine disengaged trigger disconnect device is another thing. Proper gunhandling certainly makes it unnecessary. Archie Bunker on TeeVee acted like his new-to-him Luger had one when the burglar/robber inside his house handed it back to him, but maybe he had it stored in Condition Three... But if it's a standard part ya gotta leave it in and operational.

They are of benefit mainly for poorly-supervised/taught/too young kids and more grown-up idiots.

As far as the hypothetical question after "accidentally shooting a 5 year old child on the other side of the range", that might never get asked if it had no bearing on the accident and a proper motion in limine is made and properly granted.  Totally irrelevant if the ND shooter had a magazine in the gun at the moment of violating the First Three Rules.

BTW, I've NEVER heard of an SD situation where a reload with a round left in the chamber was fired before the fresh mag was put in. But I still don't like mag disconnects and will probably never buy a gun that has one.

I agree with your assessment, including the word "might". My concern is shooters who do not think all the way through the ramifications. What if they sell that modified gun later, they do have an AD, etc.

Just want everyone to understand the background on the rules and potential issues that could have been considered in crafting those rules and the potential issues of modifying guns.

As I said, its up to the gun owner to decide what they want to do. And the Match personnel are going to decide based on previous guidance, interpretations, and understanding of the rules. Just be prepared and no hard feelings.

GrumpyOldMan wrote:.....................................................................................
BTW, I've NEVER heard of an SD situation where a reload with a round left in the chamber was fired before the fresh mag was put in. But I still don't like mag disconnects and will probably never buy a gun that has one.

I think that a more likely scenario would be one in which the mag release got bumped. Whether the mag fully dropped or just moved a fraction of an inch, the operator now has a non functional firearm. A dropped mag may/should be noticed depending upon other distractions, one that moved just a little might not be. It can be cured but that will require time that may not be available. Were I ever in that situation, I would prefer a single shot over a no shot but this is not really about self defense usage.

In our case, competitive shooting, it is certainly NOT a life or death problem. People are not removing mag disconnects from their guns in huge numbers in general, they are however removing them from MK III's because they can and frequently do interfere with 'normal' operation of the pistol. Personally, I have several pistols which have mag disconnects and they are pretty much 'transparent', going unnoticed. The MK III's that I have observed, not so much.
I don't see a lot of time between "LOAD" and "UNLOAD, CLEAR AND LOCK" where a mag disconnect would be of much benefit to safety. The rest of the time the pistol has an ECI in place right?

Last post from me on this matter.  

I guess I'd just finish by saying, why not ask your gunsmith if they would remove any such device for you? 

If they say yes, then there will be at least someone else standing there with you.  If they say no, then that might tell you something.

Wow!  

I always thought that "sea lawyers" only existed in the Navy and Marine Corps.

OK, I don't want this to devolve into a legal debate.  Let's stick with the application of the rules of the sport and leave the court debates for the courtroom.

A few years ago at Perry I was using a long slide 45 that I made with a one piece hammer spring housing and beaver tail. There was no grip safety. I was told by the Range Officer he would let it go for the warm-up but I couldn't use it in the match. I challenged it with the protest committee. They ruled it was a custom gun not a stock 1911 and it was legal. However if it was a beaver tail not the one piece I made then I could not disable the safety. Next year a few AMU shooters liked that one piece beaver tail I made and had a few made and used it too. Adam was one of them. CMP or Possibly  DCM limited the gun to have the same safety's as the service pistol. BTW the Gold Cup National Match pistol was not allowed in the National match prior to'82. maybe a few years earlier.